tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post2030299932020004997..comments2024-03-27T11:29:23.559-03:00Comments on Sufficient Description: A New Framework for Construing the Inventive ConceptUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-86734996348403985982021-06-04T12:52:13.471-03:002021-06-04T12:52:13.471-03:00Very interesting and helpful series of posts. To y...Very interesting and helpful series of posts. To your point at 1.3.1, [67] of Vyvanse suggests that Rennie JA interpreted Sanofi "... or if that cannot readily be done, construe it [the inventive concept]" rather than "construe it [the claim in question]". In Ciba it seems to have been interpreted the other way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-79631224851114626832021-05-27T09:40:42.229-03:002021-05-27T09:40:42.229-03:00Thanks for pointing that out - that's helpful ...Thanks for pointing that out - that's helpful for my next post as well.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-81080197403269995152021-05-26T17:04:49.292-03:002021-05-26T17:04:49.292-03:00At paragraph 27 of Apotex v. Janssen, 2021 FCA 45,...At paragraph 27 of Apotex v. Janssen, 2021 FCA 45, a different panel seems to have adopted a similar position to Rennie JA ruling that advantages not specifically claimed can be taken into account when assessing obviousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com